CUPE Ontario Leaders Pledge Solidarity With York Region Paramedic Fired for Her Support for Anti-War Rally
A Facebook comment by CUPE Local 4900 member Katherine Grzejszczak included criticisms of Israel's genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. On June 20 she was fired by York Region Paramedic Services management, after being questioned about the comment.
'Katherine is a strong, brave and principled CUPE member who was elected democratically by fellow CUPE Ontario members to be a leader in our union. She is also someone whose life's work is saving others from harm, and yet she's being punished for using her voice to oppose the mass harm of others,' said CUPE Ontario President Fred Hahn.
CUPE Ontario's executive board was unequivocal that this discriminatory treatment of a CUPE member is an affront to every worker who believes in the right to speak out for peace and justice, or on any matter of conscience. Executive members also pledged their support for efforts to overturn the termination.
'To dedicate your professional life to emergency response and preserving life, and then to be fired for giving voice to opposition to an ongoing genocide, exposes chilling contradictions,' said CUPE Ontario Secretary-Treasurer Yolanda McClean. 'It's the inconsistent position of York Region Paramedic Services that makes no sense.'
'As outraged as we are about Katherine's unjust termination, this dangerous situation has broader impacts,' said Hahn. 'No employer should be able to silence any worker for challenging injustice.'
'This is about the Charter right of workers, as persons of conscience, to speak out against genocide and war. Katherine's comment on Facebook aligns completely with CUPE Ontario's longstanding, democratically decided anti-war principles.'
MU:cj/cope491
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
11 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Africa's youngest state dismisses deal to host Palestinians from war-torn Gaza
South Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has firmly denied claims that it is engaged in talks with Israel to resettle Palestinians from the war-ravaged Gaza Strip. South Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied allegations of involvement in discussions to resettle Palestinians from Gaza. South Sudan emphasized its priorities are addressing internal challenges, stating these claims were unfounded. Other African nations, such as Somalia, have also previously rejected similar proposals concerning displaced Palestinians. The statement comes in response to an Associated Press report on citing six unnamed sources who alleged that discussions were underway between Juba and Tel Aviv to relocate some Palestinians to the East African nation. South Sudanese officials dismissed the claims as unfounded, stressing that no such negotiations had taken place and reaffirming the country's current priorities lie in addressing its own internal humanitarian and development challenges. In a statement sighted by Reuters, South Sudan's foreign affairs ministry described the claims as baseless and ' do not reflect the official position or policy of the Government of the Republic of South Sudan," The ministry's clarification seeks to put to rest mounting speculation over the reported arrangement, which had quickly drawn international attention due to the highly sensitive nature of the Israel–Palestine conflict and South Sudan's delicate diplomatic posture. African nations take a firm stance on hosting Palestinian refugees This marks the second time an African nation has rejected proposals to host displaced Palestinians from Gaza. In March, both Somalia and its breakaway region of Somaliland denied receiving any such proposal from the United States or Israel, with Mogadishu stating it categorically opposed the idea. The refusal by African states such as South Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland to host displaced Palestinians from Gaza is rooted in a mix of political, security, and geopolitical considerations, all of which intersect with historical sensitivities about sovereignty and foreign influence. Gaza has become almost uninhabitable due to a combination of prolonged conflict, blockade, and the current war's unprecedented destruction. Years of restrictions on movement and goods imposed primarily by Israel and Egypt, have crippled Gaza's economy, infrastructure, and health systems. Water and electricity are scarce, and large parts of the territory lie in ruins after sustained Israeli military operations. These conditions have fueled occasional proposals to relocate some displaced Palestinians abroad. The AP report published in March disclosed that the United States and Israel engaged officials from several East African governments to discuss the possibility of using their territories as destinations for Palestinians displaced from the Gaza Strip under President Donald Trump's proposed postwar plan. The outreach to Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway region of Somaliland highlighted Washington and Tel Aviv's determination to advance a proposal that has drawn widespread condemnation and raised serious legal and moral concerns. Given that all three locations face poverty and, in some cases, ongoing violence, the plan also casts doubt on Trump's stated aim of resettling Gaza's Palestinians in what he described as a 'beautiful area.'
Atlantic
9 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Awkward Adolescence of a Media Revolution
There's a quiet revolution in how millions of Americans decide what's real. Trust is slipping away from traditional institutions—media, government, and higher education—and shifting to individual voices online, among them social-media creators. The Reuters Institute reports that this year, for the first time, more Americans will get their news from social and video platforms—including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X—than from traditional outlets. According to Pew Research, one in five adults now regularly turns to influencers for news. For anyone who cares about credible information, this is a potentially terrifying prospect. Social media rewards virality, not veracity. Spend five minutes scrolling TikTok or Instagram and you might encounter influencers 'educating' you about a global elite running the world from 'hidden continents' behind an 'ice wall' in Antarctica, or extolling the virtues of zeolite, 'a volcanic binder for mold' that will 'vacuum clean all kinds of toxins' to lift brain fog, prevent cancer, and remove microplastics from testicles. (Link to purchase in bio.) It's an environment perfectly engineered to scale both misinformation and slick grifts. And yet the popular notion that social media is just a dumpster fire of viral lies misses something vital: Millions of people still care about truth. They are seeking facts on social media from credible voices they can trust. They just aren't always sure where to find it or from whom. I know because I interact with these people every day. I was among the first independent journalists to bring news reporting to Instagram; today my outlet, News Not Noise, spans Instagram, YouTube, a podcast, Substack, and other platforms. In my years of directly engaging with an on-platform audience, the question I receive more than any other remains simply, 'Is this true?' I'm here to tell you the truth isn't dead. Thousands of people like me operate online as what I call 'evidence-based creators.' We're journalists and specialists who use expertise, original reporting, and reliable sources to refute misinformation, add context to breaking news, and answer the endless questions flooding our DMs. The topics we cover range from redistricting to medical misinformation, beauty fads to whether that viral health-food trend might actually kill you. The work is an uphill battle. My cohort is not John Oliver–level media personalities with PR teams, production crews, and a research staff to fact-check the punch lines. We are independent voices operating without safety nets. I like to think of us as the digital equivalent of artisanal chefs working in a factory for mass-produced junk food. The very things that make us valuable—our obsession with facts, our commitment to nuance, our hours spent answering audience questions in the apps—put us at a profound disadvantage in the attention economy. What does it take to produce a slick video claiming that beef tallow is nature's Viagra? Fifteen minutes with an iPhone and zero regard for reality. While we're still sourcing assertions and trying to make complex ideas both accurate and engaging, the bullshit factory has already pumped out six more viral falsehoods. Our secret weapon isn't production value or algorithm hacking; it's trust. When I debunk a viral lie, I'm not a faceless institution. I'm the person who's been with my audience while they brush their teeth every morning, the person who's been in their ears during commutes, the person whose face they've studied through hundreds of 90-second windows into complex issues. This isn't an audience of passive consumers. They're hungry for more—more reporting on more topics, more conversations with experts, more explanations that break things down but don't treat an audience like idiots. 'Can the Supreme Court disbar an attorney?' 'Will the military disobey unconstitutional orders?' 'Do I need another measles vaccine as an adult?' All of this leaves evidence-based creators in a strange limbo. We're clearly valued; Substack, for instance, is proving that audiences are willing to stop scrolling and financially support 'verifiers' they trust. But we're still largely disconnected from the resources and collaborative frameworks that could multiply our impact. We're working so hard at the work itself that we have little opportunity to build the scaffolding required to create a durable new model in digital publishing—one that includes tools such as high-powered marketing and growth engines to reach new audiences, editorial oversight to help with difficult judgment calls, and shared research that would prevent each of us from having to build expertise from scratch with every breaking story. I see this obstacle as an opportunity. History shows us that industries facing technological disruption tend not to simply collapse—they transform. Look at what happened to the music industry when Spotify and its streaming cohort crashed the party. In the old days, musicians lived and died by album sales and radio play, with major labels acting as gatekeepers. Then streaming blew the doors off. The revolution was messy. Many artists found themselves with more listeners than ever but paychecks that wouldn't cover a month's worth of ramen. What helped the music industry find its footing wasn't nostalgia for CDs or vinyl. It was new infrastructure: playlist curation that helped listeners find their next obsession, analytics tools that told artists who was actually listening, distribution services that got music onto platforms, and business models that went beyond streaming royalties to include direct-to-fan revenue and merchandising. Artists still face challenges, but now labels are investing heavily in data to understand trends, offering artists different types of deals, and using their marketing muscle to help artists cut through the digital noise. The industry evolved by creating tools that complemented streaming algorithms instead of fighting them—helping artists understand their audiences, not just pray for a decent playlist placement. In our current information ecosystem, we're stuck in the awkward adolescence of a media revolution. The need for innovation couldn't be more urgent. Local newspapers are dying like mall food courts— 2,500-plus have shut down since 2005. Traditional media outlets are under assault by the Trump administration. And AI is flooding us with convincing fake content, making human truth tellers all the more necessary. Conversations about the press and the tech revolution often get stuck on the problems with or the inadequacy of any solution. It's time that changed. So I'll take the leap and propose some imperfect innovations. First, audiences could benefit from an independent, off-platform certification system to help them discern which independent voices adhere to journalistic standards. Not to be all 'Papers, please' about it, but audiences need signals about who's committed to accuracy versus who's just chasing likes. One solution: a nonprofit voluntary opt-in LEED-type certification that awards something like a blue check mark—but vetted far more rigorously—to creators who use agreed-upon trusted sources, check their facts, and reveal when their content is sponsored. I'm aware that any credentialing system risks backlash from those suspicious of 'gatekeeping.' But people shouldn't be disparaged for 'doing their own research' if they aren't offered the tools to tell reality from fiction. Second, evidence-based creators need support. Imagine a fractional-ownership model where like-valued creators buy into a shared professional framework. With an economy of scale, we could collectively share in things such as legal protection and sophisticated audience-development tools designed specifically for evidence-based content. We could sign sponsors who understand the unique value of trusted voices. We could offer bundled subscriptions to help audiences find more of us at once. This could create sustainable revenue streams without compromising integrity. Finally, legacy media, please stop viewing creators as a threat. We don't have to be competitors—we can be the connective tissue between trusted journalism and the platforms where people now consume most of their information. Traditional media outlets can stay relevant in the new digital reality by partnering with us. But first, it'd help if they'd allow for the possibility that what's happening isn't just the death of an old system—it's the messy, complicated birth of a new one. And like a newborn, it needs more than good intentions in order to thrive.
NBC News
9 hours ago
- NBC News
Israeli gunfire kills at least 25 in Gaza as Netanyahu says he will allow Palestinians to leave
TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli gunfire killed at least 25 people seeking aid in Gaza on Wednesday, health officials and witnesses said, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu again called for what he refers to as the voluntary migration of Palestinians from the war-ravaged territory. Netanyahu wants to realize U.S. President Donald Trump's vision of relocating much of Gaza's population of over 2 million people through what he refers to as 'voluntary migration' — and what critics have warned could be ethnic cleansing. 'Give them the opportunity to leave! First, from combat zones, and also from the strip if they want,' Netanyahu said in an interview aired Tuesday with Israeli TV station i24 to discuss the planned offensive in areas that include Gaza City, where hundreds of thousands of displaced people shelter. 'We are not pushing them out but allowing them to leave.' Witnesses and staff at Nasser and Awda hospitals, which received the bodies, said people were shot on their way to aid distribution sites or while awaiting convoys entering Gaza. Efforts to revive ceasefire talks Efforts to revive ceasefire talks have resumed after apparently breaking down last month. Hamas and Egyptian officials met Wednesday in Cairo, according to Hamas official Taher al-Nounou. Israel has no plans to send its negotiating team to talks in Cairo, Netanyahu's office said. Israel's plans to widen its military offensive against Hamas to parts of Gaza it does not yet control have sparked condemnation at home and abroad, and could be intended to raise pressure on Hamas to reach a ceasefire. The militants still hold 50 hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023 attack that sparked the war. Israel believes around 20 are still alive. Families fear a new offensive endangers them. he wanted all hostages back, alive and dead.
